3 ms·

What if your quitting tool is so appealing, that people who don't have addictions are appealed, start using the "quitting tool" (as it is often used today), and

• Lazare 8y ago
  Yep, a really good tool to get people off of cigarettes will inevitably lure some people to try it who weren't smoking cigarettes to start with. > and start being addicted to nicotine as well? Then they'll be addicted to nicotine. And? You're dropping that like it's some sort of trump card, but the reality this is about harm reduction, and trying to find a policy that will lead to optimal outcomes. If you can get X smokers to switch to vaping while Y non-smokers also start vaping, is that good? Depends on the harm of smoking, the harm of vaping, and the size of X relative to Y. Just yelling that Y is non-zero number without all the other information we need is just pointless noise. If "...and then they'll be addicted!" was a compelling argument, we'd be banning Starbucks.
  • yzmtf2008 8y ago
    And? Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted”, that’s just a bogus argument. Considering Y is more likely to be younger people, I find that unlikely.
    • Lazare 8y ago
      > Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted” If group X is larger and/or the harm avoided from their switching to less harmful behaviours is more serious, then a simple utilitarian calculation says yes, it is more valuable. What data I've seen is still tentative, but suggestive that this is the case. Do you have data to show the opposite?